How Wide The Divide?

[_Ray A]

Perhaps eventually you'll come around to thinking logically about it.

Done that, already, marg. In fact over 20 years worth of it (including the book I got from Shades). And Spalding is dead in the water, as far as I'm concerned. It's not even half as appealing as continental drift :)

[_Dr. Shades]

Official credentials, a foolproof shield against criticism and scrutiny, were naturally coveted most by those who needed them most: it was the poorly qualified who clamored for the status symbol of the degree.

I wonder what Juliann thinks of that statement?

Done that, already, marg. In fact over 20 years worth of it (including the book I got from Shades).

Did you finish reading the book?

.

[_Ray A]

Did you finish reading the book?

Not every footnote, and not even every page, but the central thesis of the book is what interested me. That's how I've read all books in the last 10 or so years, except those that have made me riveted. Read the first and last few chapters, and the conclusion, then work my way back to how the author/s arrive at the conclusions they do. It's almost foolproof, since an author is unlikely to disregard the central thesis in the those sections. But I didn't read all 558 pages. If there was a "gotcha" moment in the book, it would have been mentioned in those sections. If you think otherwise, let me know and I'll be happy to debate you on any section while I have the book and you don't (stick-tongue-out-here smiley).

In any case, thanks for sending it to me. I appreciate your thoughtfulness.

[_Inconceivable]

It's just that I can't reconcile Nibley's sentiments with all of the focus on degrees and the attainment of academic status as a "necessity" for attaining "credibility", or even a "proper understanding", in the field of Mormon studies.

So what is the future of Mormonism? Will they trust the Prophets, or the Scholars?

Hi Ray,

Some dialog concerning credentials came to mind this morning:

Satan: "Have you been trained for the ministry"

Cleric: "Yes, A man cannot teach unless he has been trained for the ministry"

Satan: "If you teach these people, I will pay you well"

Cleric: "I'll do my best"

[Anonymous]

This is an interesting thread, Ray. And contra marg, strikes me as more evidence of the continuing intellectual flowering of Ray A. Bravo!

Leaving aside Nibley (though that is hard to do, no? While I appreciate his criticisms of what could be called, but would never have been termed as such by Nibley, the reification of Mormonism, I find myself often nonplussed by some of his vaunted scholarly range. I don't doubt that he was an intellectual, I don't doubt that much of his intellect and emotional well being was broken upon the demands placed on him by the brethern, what I do find myself struggling with is how little I see of a keen conceptual ability despite a great deal of reading and study), this is a question more of autodidacticism than "amateurism" per se. And that makes it especially rich fodder for Mormon history since the religion itself grew from the autodidactic abilities (and limitations) of its founder.

For myself, I see the history of the split of "professionalist" discourses as less grounded in a history of ideas stretching back to classical definition and more as a result of the specialization and compartmentalization of knowledge that results from the capitalist division of labor. An interesting text on this would be Intellectual and Manual Labour: A Critique of Epistemology by Alfred Sohn-Rethel. You can find some extracts from it on Ralph Dumain's excellent and always useful website, "The Autodidact Project" http://www.autodidactproject.org/index.html

Also this:

Dr. Shades wrote:
Did you finish reading the book?

Not every footnote, and not even every page, but the central thesis of the book is what interested me. That's how I've read all books in the last 10 or so years, except those that have made me riveted. Read the first and last few chapters, and the conclusion, then work my way back to how the author/s arrive at the conclusions they do. It's almost foolproof, since an author is unlikely to disregard the central thesis in the those sections. But I didn't read all 558 pages. If there was a "gotcha" moment in the book, it would have been mentioned in those sections. If you think otherwise, let me know and I'll be happy to debate you on any section while I have the book and you don't (stick-tongue-out-here smiley).

is a respectable and scholarly research practice.

[_Jersey Girl]

And Spalding is dead in the water, as far as I'm concerned.

I hope that you're open to revision. Would you be open to revision, if the evidence were compelling and concrete?

[_marg]

And Spalding is dead in the water, as far as I'm concerned.

I hope that you're open to revision. Would you be open to revision, if the evidence were compelling and concrete?

Ray would be J.G. because he is not heavily emotionally invested in Mormonism. He does however accept supernatural explanations as likely possibilities so he's willing to accept statements from 1 st witnesses, or from J. Smith which involve the supernatural as credible with little skepticism.

[_marg]

Not every footnote, and not even every page, but the central thesis of the book is what interested me. That's how I've read all books in the last 10 or so years, except those that have made me riveted. Read the first and last few chapters, and the conclusion, then work my way back to how the author/s arrive at the conclusions they do. It's almost foolproof, since an author is unlikely to disregard the central thesis in the those sections. But I didn't read all 558 pages. If there was a "gotcha" moment in the book, it would have been mentioned in those sections. If you think otherwise, let me know and I'll be happy to debate you on any section while I have the book and you don't (stick-tongue-out-here smiley).

In any case, thanks for sending it to me. I appreciate your thoughtfulness.

That is a good way to approach any and all books, first get an overview as you have done, and then decide how to read the book, whether with careful scrutiny or a quick read, or perhaps even to ignore further. This book does follow a step by step sequential approach building up a case/argument in stages with facts. What you've done is fine to get the overview but it really deserves to be read later in the proper sequence without skipping sections, if one is to be able to claim they understand the case being made.

[_Ray A]

Hi Blixa,

Leaving aside Nibley (though that is hard to do, no? While I appreciate his criticisms of what could be called, but would never have been termed as such by Nibley, the reification of Mormonism, I find myself often nonplussed by some of his vaunted scholarly range. I don't doubt that he was an intellectual, I don't doubt that much of his intellect and emotional well being was broken upon the demands placed on him by the brethern, what I do find myself struggling with is how little I see of a keen conceptual ability despite a great deal of reading and study)

Kent Jackson is among the very few Mormon scholars who've criticised Nibley (at least in publication):

In 1989 I published a review of one of Nibley's books in which I pointed out what I felt were major problems in his scholarship, particularly in the book I was reviewing. It may be the most critical review of Nibley ever written by a believing Latter-day Saint.... Among my critiques was that Nibley often generalized excessively, saw "things in the sources that simply don't seem to be there," let his "predetermined conclusions set the agenda for the evidence," and misinterpreted authors he cited. Others, including some of Nibley's greatest admirers, have found the same problems in his scholarship. But the academic transgressions committed by Nibley (hardly unique to him) were the products of carelessness and wishful thinking, not of fraud and deception. Nibley's greatest skill as a scholar was his ability to see the big picture, not his ability to finesse the fine details. Nowhere in my own examination of his research and writing did I find any hint of his making up sources for fictional references. I do not believe it happened.

Your observation is much like Jackson's. Before David Wright discarded his view of the Book of Mormon as history he went through all of Nibley's works (just to be sure) and said they did nothing to change his mind. Many moons ago I also went through most of Nibley's books, starting with Since Cumorah. What I noted over a number of years is that is that Alma's formula must apply: "Ye must desire to believe." Nibley has been of far more interest to me as a social and Church critic. I can think of no one inside apologetic circles today who does this the way he did. And I wonder why.

For myself, I see the history of the split of "professionalist" discourses as less grounded in a history of ideas stretching back to classical definition and more as a result of the specialization and compartmentalization of knowledge that results from the capitalist division of labor. An interesting text on this would be Intellectual and Manual Labour: A Critique of Epistemology by Alfred Sohn-Rethel. You can find some extracts from it on Ralph Dumain's excellent and always useful website, "The Autodidact Project" http://www.autodidactproject.org/index.html

Thanks for that link. In this regard I think of Eric Hoffer, who was a longshoreman. The link is very interesting, and I note C.L.R James among the people of interest (a former fellow countryman). I'll be going through that in detail later. Another author who has long interested me is V.S. Naipaul, another social critic and also an observer of Islam (Among The Believers).

But I digress. What to make of apologia today? I don't see any real deep introspection or questioning, and as I previously noted the approached seems to be "asked and answered". Where are the B.H. Roberts-type of scholars, who are really prepared to dig into the Book of Mormon and give it some serious critical scrutiny, instead of offering the "asked and answered" approach? I've already noted David Wright. I know of no serious apologetic reply to the problems Wright has raised, and I see no serious attempt to even concede the possibility that the Book of Mormon could even be religious fiction. To do that, I suppose, is to cross from apologist to critic, but for me that's what I find somewhat superficial about apologetics. "Ye must desire to believe." Apologetics is the last stronghold of the member struggling with serious questions, and the long held aim of arms like the Maxwell Institute is to make it "professional". Interestingly, Wright pursued biblical studies to boost his faith, initially, to "become another Hugh Nibley", but his "findings" put him at odds with apologia. The "divide" I mention is that, in my opinion, much of apologetics has become as Inc. noted, "are you trained for the ministry?" It can be viewed as the "owning" (TM) of apologetics in some sense. Almost everything has been "asked and answered", so "do we really have to go over all this again?" Also note Loap's comment that there are "smarter people than me who still believe". Own a brain, get your Ph.D in Egyptology, and the believers will be impressed. Display erudition along with the letters. That's modern apologia, or what it has become. When basic faith and the Prophets fail - turn to the Scholars.

[_Ray A]

And Spalding is dead in the water, as far as I'm concerned.

I hope that you're open to revision. Would you be open to revision, if the evidence were compelling and concrete?

Jersey Girl, I've been open for many years, like since about the early 1980s when I went through Lester Bush, et al. The long Dan Vogel thread here also offered a reiteration of why Spalding fails on many counts. In the end it's a thesis, not a fact. An interesting one to boot, but one with too many serious gaps which fail at crucial points.

I would prefer to keep this thread on apologetics though.